Jump to content

Off The Cut - CRT and evictions


Felshampo

Featured Posts

Can you give examples of where the goalposts moved please.

 

Bod

 

As said, examples on this topic and more info in the video.

 

CRT themselves cannot state where the goalposts are, but their actions demonstrate they have varying ideas on where the goalposts are not. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As said, examples on this topic and more info in the video.

 

CRT themselves cannot state where the goalposts are, but their actions demonstrate they have varying ideas on where the goalposts are not. :rolleyes:

Every time they try and state where the goalposts are (places map?) they get massively shot down with cries of, "that's not in the 95 Act!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time they try and state where the goalposts are (places map?) they get massively shot down with cries of, "that's not in the 95 Act!"

 

 

Swerving off topic, but assuming CRT chaps are reading, I see no problem in them stating an upper limit above which they might guarantee to deem compliance. Say a cruising range of 100 miles observed in each three month period would GUARANTEE the board is satisfied. Cruising ranges of less than this may well satisfy the board too, but 100 miles GUARANTEES it and no enforcement will ever happen.

 

Then they could fiddle with it and reduce the range if they saw fit. 50 miles, say? Then test out 30 miles? the pis- takers doing 0 miles in three months would be hard pressed to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I read that too, but it is extremely rare. It's always hearsay too, so not proplery reliable. I'll be surprised if a poster rocks up here claiming personally to have been told this, and willing to answer questions about what happened, exactly.

I heard from Mirry this evening, they're on their way up the South Oxford so if any one sees yet another Dreamcatcher, it'll possibly be them. She thinks the problem was caused by the fact that they were on the Long Pound for much of the summer. She said they overstayed in two places for over 14 days. In the first instance, because they were on tour (they're musicians) and a friend let down in not moving the boat soon enough and the second time due to a hospital stay - Bob had uncontrolled angina. She also said that she had discussed the second overstay with a CRT official who said it would be fine under the circumstances, but hadn't realised that the friend had fouled up in the first until it was pointed out to her.

 

I think she's happy to accept that they made mistakes, but that the remedy is a bit draconian. Still, she's not one to make a fuss, and rules are rules, so they'll accept the decision and are moving elsewhere. She thinks it may be time for a mooring somewhere, as "we appear to be making a living and will be able to afford it". I think she might just enjoy access to a water tap when she wants. Bob's not so sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time they try and state where the goalposts are (places map?) they get massively shot down with cries of, "that's not in the 95 Act!"

Although there were some shouting that "fact". It was not the sole reason for rejecting the maps at the time, ( I know because I attended the meetings). Much of the fear at the time, was on how it would affect home moorers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time they try and state where the goalposts are (places map?) they get massively shot down with cries of, "that's not in the 95 Act!"

The extra workload on the EO'S would have been significant, if that ill thought out idea had been implemented.

 

Regards kris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swerving off topic, but assuming CRT chaps are reading, I see no problem in them stating an upper limit above which they might guarantee to deem compliance. Say a cruising range of 100 miles observed in each three month period would GUARANTEE the board is satisfied. Cruising ranges of less than this may well satisfy the board too, but 100 miles GUARANTEES it and no enforcement will ever happen.

 

Then they could fiddle with it and reduce the range if they saw fit. 50 miles, say? Then test out 30 miles? the pis- takers doing 0 miles in three months would be hard pressed to argue.

It is possible that the suggestion of moving to another waterway might have been given in that spirit and look where that got us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time they try and state where the goalposts are (places map?) they get massively shot down with cries of, "that's not in the 95 Act!"

 

True, but they are the ones making judgement as to what is and isn't 'bona fide navigation'

 

All they need to do is enforce the worst p*ss takers, they do tend to go overboard though.

 

In quieter areas, something like a journey of at least N miles M (once?) times a year would probably be acceptable to most (and practical to enforce - importantly! judge.gif)

 

In very busy areas (popular VMs, possibly only at certain times of year), maybe not returning to the same VM (or area) more than N times in a certain period.

Edited by smileypete
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In quieter areas, something like a journey of at least N miles M (once?) times a year would probably be acceptable to most (and practical to enforce - importantly! judge.gif)

 

"But, but, I did my once a year 'M' trip last week, its not my fault you didn't see it"

 

Its not difficult to do 100 miles in a week - if you really want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be worth seeing what the various suggestions from the various bodies ie NBTA, NABO, IWA, RBOA, CRT etc etc IF the green light were to be given to tear the 1995 Waterways Act up and completely rewrite it.

 

Oh, and Local Councils too - I bet those in London would have something to suggest.

 

Whether a reasonable compromise could be found between the various parties.....maybe? Who can predict the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be two main problems:

 

People mooring in the same spot or small area for the entire year, clearly not CCing.

 

People frequently returning to the same popular VMs thereby denying others the chance to use them.

 

IF CRT can just enforce both of these I think most would find that acceptable.

 

(OK unlicenced boats and overstaying at the same VM is clearly outside of the rules)

Edited by smileypete
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If proof is needed, just touch base with the local EO or a lockie. (not that hard to work out is it??? rolleyes.gif)

 

It has been proven (in the past) that whilst lock keepers (at least on the Trent) 'take down' your boat name, registration number and date of expiry of your licence, no use is made of this information and their note-books are not linked in any way to the enforcement / monitoring system.

 

There was a thread sometime ago about a boater (who started the thread) who was 'under enforcement' for non-movement, having travelled 'hundreds' of miles up the Trent and Witham and then back down the Trent. There was no record of his movements.

One of the Lockies who was a forum member said he would provide him with evidence / support his case to prove that he had in fact passed his lock on a number of occasions during the period in question.

 

I would have no idea where to find an EO - I have not (knowingly) ever seen one, the only C&RT representatives I have had any dealings with in 100s of miles per year that I cruise have been volunteer lockies and bankside volunteers trying to make me be a 'friend'.

 

I am sure if I went into the Red-Bull offices (for example) and asked them to come out whilst I photographed them next to my boat, or asked them to write me a letter saying they had witnessed me (and the boat) outside their offices I would get short-shrift.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be two main problems:

 

People mooring in the same spot or small area for the entire year, clearly not CCing.

 

People frequently returning to the same popular VMs thereby denying others the chance to use them.

 

IF CRT can just enforce both of these I think most would find that acceptable.

 

(OK unlicenced boats and overstaying at the same VM is clearly outside of the rules)

Denise Yelland (head of enforcement) made a public statement in 2014. She suggested they had no problems with people overstaying on visitor moorings.

It would be worth seeing what the various suggestions from the various bodies ie NBTA, NABO, IWA, RBOA, CRT etc etc IF the green light were to be given to tear the 1995 Waterways Act up and completely rewrite it.

 

Oh, and Local Councils too - I bet those in London would have something to suggest.

 

Whether a reasonable compromise could be found between the various parties.....maybe? Who can predict the future?

The last waterways minister made it clear to CRT that a change in legislation was not an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It has been proven (in the past) that whilst lock keepers (at least on the Trent) 'take down' your boat name, registration number and date of expiry of your licence, no use is made of this information and their note-books are not linked in any way to the enforcement / monitoring system.

 

Surely the lockies have the mobile number of the local EO, just phone em up?

 

To show you haven't moored in the same spot all year all you need to do is get the boat location recorded just twice a year in different areas.

Edited by smileypete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, internet speed up to now means I've just watched the film and I don't understand how these can be legally enforceable when the guy from CRT says, "...Now they don't say how far they have to move and we don't say that to boaters either because we don't have the powers to say that..." and later "we can't explicitly say how far you have to move to". Surely if that's the case, CRT have no leg to stand on? Has there been a test case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:

People mooring in the same spot or small area for the entire year, clearly not CCing.

Ok, taking into consideration where we moor no one does this anymore, not in the past two years anyway. Ok, two people did, both got section 8, one was towed, the other was scuppered. You just can't do this anymore, lets make this clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, internet speed up to now means I've just watched the film and I don't understand how these can be legally enforceable when the guy from CRT says, "...Now they don't say how far they have to move and we don't say that to boaters either because we don't have the powers to say that..." and later "we can't explicitly say how far you have to move to". Surely if that's the case, CRT have no leg to stand on? Has there been a test case?

 

Plenty of cases, but because at county court level do not set a precedent:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publication-scheme/our-publication-scheme/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very unfortunate the NBTA chose to put 'traveller' in the name. Boaters have nothing to do with travellers, which are a group of people no one wants within 100 miles of, nor does anyone know what a bargee is.

That's not necessarily true in reality, though. The lines are more blurred than I myself originally thought.

 

I know plenty of land based travellers on boats. We were very much in the minority as 'not travellers' when we took this home mooring as it had been a travellers site in the past and the occupants had simply bought boats. And as well as Irish travellers (like my old neighbours) there are the hippy convoy travellers, some of the twenty/thirty somethings I know have never lived in a house, they were brought up in trucks and now live on boats. They are having families on the water . And therefore some of them are already registered as travellers as are their kids. I think they have every right to call themselves travellers as they have never known any different.

 

As for ''no one wants within 100 miles of'' I dispute that. It's the only community I've lived in where you can trust everyone with your keys and your stuff. But the prejudice they suffer and I have witnessed is awful.

 

ETa, I must admit the name is cringey. I don't think of myself as a bargee. They were the people who worked the big boats in my hometown. They didn't live on.

Edited by Lady Muck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mother on the film seemed able to leave her boat very easily at the end for a van! Very strange. Also odd that the couple who went to explore the canals were disappointed because they found no itinerant communities, nothing about the beauty of the scenery, freedom, nature or the joy of living on a boat. It seems these people were more interested in their "homes" (never boats?) than living on the canals.

 

 

You weren't watching the film very closely. Watch it again.

 

Also, a boat is an object, a possession. A boat can be a possession and a home. A boat that is you're only home is not CRT's to be confiscating or destroying. The least I'd say is CRT's responsibility would be to compensate those they'd like to evict and, find them a home to move into. CRT cannot legally set a distance. Regardless of how people view some boater's lack of movement, it hardly warrants threatening to deprive someone of their home. Far less serious is depriving someone of a bit of mooring space.

 

Get your sense of proportion right.

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some sympathy for the boater in the video and I suspect it all originates with BW who failed to ensure all boaters without a home mooring complied with the requirement to bona fide navigate without remaining continuously in any place for more than 14 days. As a consequence some boaters didn't comply and were eventually joined by others. This group of boaters way of boating then became the "norm" for that location.

 

 

I doubt reversing this situation is CRT's highest enforcement priority. I would think the revenue leakage from license evasion will be higher. However CRT senior management will have received direction to ensure all boaters without a home mooring comply with all their license requirements. Because CRT won't want to make a big issue of this, they would have devised a strategy to gradually change the "norm" for these groups of boaters to one of compliance with the license requirements. The majority of boaters will gradually change, however there will be a few who don't. This group will either have their licenses cancelled or not renewed. CRT have publicly advised they will use the S8 process for live-aboard boaters. I assume this is to ensure they are seen to present their case to a higher authority (the court) for a ruling. I also suspect in some cases the threat of legal action accelerates compliance or a decision to quit the inland waterways.

 

I tend to agree with Panda's assertion that CRT will increase the current minimum distance of 20 miles at some future date. That would be the logical strategy to gradually move people away from their entrenched norm.

 

The lady selling her boat appears to have made some poor decisions and is now being forced to face the consequences. There are only two of them on the boat and she is home schooling her child. One assumes she either works from the boat or is on a benefit. Either way, neither ties her to a single location. 20 miles a year is less than 100 yards per day and I believe it would be possible to avoid CRT enforcement action by pedalling that distance. I can only assume she didn't want to move the 20 miles because there were more compelling reasons for staying in the location; even if it meant selling her boat.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You weren't watching the film very closely. Watch it again.

 

Also, a boat is an object, a possession. A boat can be a possession and a home. A boat that is you're only home is not CRT's to be confiscating or destroying. The least I'd say is CRT's responsibility would be to compensate those they'd like to evict and, find them a home to move into. CRT cannot legally set a distance. Regardless of how people view some boater's lack of movement, it hardly warrants threatening to deprive someone of their home. Far less serious is depriving someone of a bit of mooring space.

 

Get your sense of proportion right.

 

These people have a choice; Abide by the rules, or face the consequences.

 

There are plenty of people living in bricks and mortar homes who are either evicted, or repossessed every day.

 

If you chose to drive around in a car, or even a motorhome, without tax, or insurance, or an MOT, or the correct licence, you would fairly soon find yourself stopped by the police, and face immediate confiscation of your vehicle.

 

CaRT are informing people of what is required, and giving them ample time and opportunity to comply. Pretty fair most would say.

 

So what exactly is your problem?

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.